OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 155

Keep in mind that the shoppers walking by had no idea of the price tag. Sony did not put spotlights on that price tag in the display setup. My point was that at a normal viewing distance (which was generally the case as people walked by), nobody really had any idea there was anything special about the display other than the size. Sticker shock and grabbing your attention as the result of 4K are two very different things. As I said, the display was awesome as you got close and saw how much detail there was to be resolved. However as you backed up, the display was much harder to differentiate from a good quality 2K display.

As is always the case when we make this kind of jump in resolution, you'll need a much bigger screen at your current viewing distance or a much closer seat to appreciate all there is. Not saying the difference isn't there, but simply the conditions must be right to appreciate the difference. In fact I have little doubt that at normal viewing distances where people generally sit for a 2K display, superior black levels will trump the benefits of 4K.

The bottom line is that 4K is the future, prices will drop and 4K material will be more common. OTOH buyers better have the room for much larger displays or have the logistics to rearrange their viewing areas or what's the point?

For those who want a cinematic experience in the home, one that envelops and immerses you, larger screen sizes are important. I view my 65 inch display, as a compromise on the way to a much larger, and hopefully thin display. I think OLED, when mature, will have its advantages, But I, too, would rather have a 90 inch Sharp LCD (despite my general non-enthusiasm for LCD) than a 55 inch OLED.

90" just sounds ridiculous and a bit overkill (the likelihood of breakage during shipping at that size is so much higher). I'm not against larger sizes, but I'm content in the 50" range for the time being. I don't think I'm in the minority either. Don't 60"+ sizes make up only a single percentage point of the market?
That prospect indeed excites me more.

The problem with trying to use past market percentages as future barometer for sales, is that the results are skewed by price. The reason a few years ago the 24"- 32" size had the largest sales percentage was because the price for 50" and up was prohibitive. Now it is getting harder to find those smaller sizes. With Sharp, Vizio and others selling 60" models below $1000, the average size should start skewing upwards. There is a tipping point as far as sizes are concerned where some of these huge sets start to become a problem for those living in condos and town homes, but even the smallest of detached homes in the US should accommodate up to an 70" to 80" with no problem.

Good info. I think OLEDs, especially at 55", are going to be even more underwhelming. They will sell neither size, nor resolution, nor really anything that people can latch onto. Thinness? Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee! Exorbitant pricing for sure. Contrast that most people will be very hard pressed to see (and might be nearly impossible to see in a lit space like a store)? OLED is an enthusiast-only product. At least 4K will also come with size.

Yes, they do. But growing slowly.

We'll just, again, disagree on that prediction. First of all, the idea that the smallest homes can take a TV that big is wrong. I live in one of the richest areas in the U.S. (no, I'm not especially well off, but I'm very well-off-adjacent). Many homes here could not take a TV that big. Many tens of millions of Americans live in much smaller homes / less well off regions. Second of all, most U.S. homes have a woman in them who wants nothing to do with a TV that big in the living room. This cultural norm does not appear to be changing especially rapidly.

You have been able to buy a 60" TV for $1000 or less for well over a year. The proportion of 60" TVs sold of the total has grown very, very slightly. The 70s have grown even more marginally, despite ready availability at prices below $2500. Obviously, these numbers will change over time. The idea this product category is headed for mainstreaming seems to still be the wishful thinking of enthusiasts rather than any evidence-based analysis. I'm sticking by my belief that the 70"+ category is likely to reach about 10% of the market over the next several years, but scarcely more.

The funny thing is, I agree with you. My 65" is a great upgrade from my 50". And when we buy again, I'll go bigger. I don't see any value at all in thinness. My TV is near a wall. I defy anyone on earth who doesn't already know how thick it is to correctly guess it's depth from looking at it (well, they'd use heuristics if they are familiar with flat panel TVs generally, but that kind of proves the point). But I could now see how a 75" could fit in my family room and could probably talk my wife into a TV that large. I doubt I'd win a discussion about 80 or 90, but 75 seems doable.

It sounds ridiculous to you. It does not sound ridiculous to Sharp, it does not sound ridiculous to the people who are buying them, or to people who are coming from having front projectors and large screens. Some people want a cinematic experience in the home, and that is not ridiculous.

90" is a ridiculous notion to the vast majority. I'm not holding against anyone because it really only comes down to feasibility and logistics for manufacturing, shipping and ultimately ownership. A roll-up OLED screen that could be hung or mounted on a wall would go a long way in making it more feasible. The price would be jaw-dropping nonetheless.

I hope someday that a 90" OLED will be my small bedroom tv and that I'll have a 150" for my main tv. That would be my dream.

Let's be clear. There are people who want them. And let's be clear, they are selling the 90" at about qty. 10,000 annualized. Worldwide. Part of that is price, but even the home-theater projector market is closer to 100K units globally than 1 million.

It's going to be ridiculous to the vast majority even if it walls mounts. The idea that the screen rolling up is beneficial I actually find strange. The additional delay to start watching TV is never going to be pleasing.

One problem I have with that idea is that a lot of day-to-day content not only doesn't merit a 150" screen, it'd be actively annoying. I have no interest in CNBC on a 150" screen or, for that matter, the typical half-hour comedy.

If the screen could start out transparent and use a small portion of itself for "regular" viewing and more of itself for movies and sports, it'd be more appealing. Of course, transparent-substrate screens have other problems.

I'm waiting for the Elite 90" to be released. Will purchase it the same day it gets released. If some people do not enjoy a 90" TV, they don't have to buy one. My bedroom TV is bigger than 50" and I'm happy with it.

Maybe so, but it might be a nice alternative for a projector (and won't have all those pesky requirements that are associated with projector setups). The beneficial part to the roll-up form factor is in the shipping and transportation...yea, I hadn't considered the complexity and fragility involved beyond that when setting up. In terms of the delay factor, this could be allayed via a dedicated wall. I agree that it might be too unsightly for many of the female of the species in particular.

Let's be clear. I do think OLED will be superior to LCD, and so I'd prefer a 90 inch OLED to a 90 inch LCD, but that's not in the offing any time soon.

Of course you don't need 90 inches to watch typical television. It's real purpose to aficionados of home theater is...home theater.

Once you have a decent size screen for movies it's very hard to go back to a smaller screen. In fact, after a bit, a large panel seems normal and the tendency is to want bigger.

For many, watching a movie on a 40 or 50 inch screen is fine, and there is no right or wrong when it comes to taste. But for a not inconsiderable number of people film watching is synonymous with large screens which envelop you, and bringing that experience into the home is a great thing which technology now makes available.

Well, you see, I agree about downgrading in that I couldn't easily settle for 40" after becoming accustomed to 50". The only way anyone has been able to experience something over 75" is via projector (unless there's an 80" DLP or otherwise I'm forgetting), so I'm sure these people also have a unique in-home perspective. I am personally not getting a hankering for more screen real estate until my almost 5-year-old panel gets obsoleted in the realm of 2D PQ. Even then, PQ supersedes size for me every time.

I think that's totally reasonable to stay with what you have until something compelling comes out.

A large panel, such as the 90 inch that intrigues me, would be far more attractive and practical in OLED for many reasons, including weight. The 15 pound weight of the 55 inch LG OLED heralds large, light panels, which will be great.

Other obvious advantages of OLED are infinite black, probable elimination of blooming, and broad viewing angles, but no one has any idea about burn in. CLED, which many are skeptical about, would eliminate burn in.
Edited by taichi4 - 11/25/12 at 10:46am

I'm still in shock at the weight of the LG 55 inch. I imagine the fragility would increase as the diameters increase, but hopefully they can use a tensile material to prevent breakage from flexing during transport.

It's not an inconsiderable number of people. But that said, with the ready availability of 70" LCDs, the portion of the market they represent is currently nowhere near one half of one percent (it's probably approaching 1/4 of 1% in 2012). Of course, we are those enthusiasts. But when people look at things like the 90" sets, which are, for example. significantly below 0.1% of the market, and complaining about the cost, they should be aware, they are priced that way because the few that really demand them will pay those prices. There isn't some automatic scale economics function that's going to make those radically cheaper and ubiquitous. This is neither here not there, but it's more of an observation. It will be interesting, for example, to track the 70" progress. It start last year at at about $2500 (lowest retail) to $3000. This year it's $2000-2500, with the Black Friday deal being $1500. Add in awareness of it, and sales have certainly improved. But it's not as if manufacturers are preparing for some radical alteration of demand mix toward that size.

It will take years to even make the investments to satisfy a small portion of the market with gigantic displays. We'll watch those developments closely of course. In the meantime, you are seeing 80s and 90s come from obsolete fabs that used to make 42s and 46s. And not many of those jumbo screens are selling even though the technology to make them is well amortized and really build costs are low.

I suspect the OLEDs are going to be scary fragile. But when you start talking really, really big sizes, wall mounting should offer good protection. Once it's up there, it'll be somewhat safe. A freestanding 90" OLED will need a substructure every bit as big as the Sharp LCD or else it will be break the moment someone leans on its top corner.

No way they will release something that could shatter with little pressure.Word getting out on that will kill sales.Weird thought but maybe they should thicken up large size OLED before their release.

I haven't seen the final cosmetics, but the variants they were showing last year were actually easily breakable by a normal adult with bare hands. If you leaned on the corner at the top to, say, reach above your TV for any reason and pressed down (on one of those prototype models), you'd break it.

Wow, that would be traumatizing for the new owner of a $10k display.

I suspect that if OLED ever gets off the ground most displays won't be the ultra thin ones we've seen in demos. As a practical matter, most people aren't going to want a super fragile display that requires an external box with the electronics, and input jacks (not to mention no room for the speakers).

Yes, that external electronics box would break the deal for me

Other than cost, I think the weight/bulk of the TV itself becomes an important factor when someone envisions purchasing a large-sized display. Actually, in my case, the weight would be almost as important as the cost. If wall-mounting becomes less of a project, to the point where it's almost a non-issue, it would certainly appeal to more buyers. This is one aspect of OLED that excites me: I'd love to see a 70" OLED under 50 pounds.

I'm not greedy--I just wish I could one day have the last greatest 85-inch plasma produced by Panasonic. Is that too much to ask?

You guys should see the box the current 90" Sharp comes in--has a wooden pallet built onto the bottom to help prevent shipping damage.

Little anecdote--we've had the 90" Sharp on display for 4 months or so and it's also available at the other large Sears store in our area, about 5 miles away in a much more affluent bedroom community. Total sales between the two stores-1, and it was returned (no, I don't know why)

^Ridiculousness confirmed. ;D Have you sold any 80 inchers?

The 90" is hard to justify at $9K when you can get the Sharp 80" for around $4K. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 90" 1080p model dropped next year, in favor of a large 4K Ultra HD Model.

good point, assuming sharp is still around next year.

I don't see a lot of risk to Sharp in the next 12 months. Or really the next 24 based on what they did to refinance everything.

The question they face is if sales don't improve, who ends owning them and what happens to the pieces.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I got a 60" last year. I was like "wow, cant believe i waited so long to go 'big'". Now, a year later, I am convinced there are elves and gnomes that have been working in the dark to shrink this TV down while I sleep at night.

I casually look at the prices of the Sharp 80" ($4.5-5K) and 90" ($9.5-10k), and I think I would like to get one. However, given my current TV is only a year old, and we have the prospect of new tech coming...I think I'm going to wait 2-3 years.

I don't know if its realistic or not, but my great hope is that by end of 2015 /early 2016, I'll be able to go get a 80" 4K OLED for about $5K, or a 90" for about $8-10K. And in fact, as i consider a new home theater credenza in the next calendar year, I am making sure it is 82" wide to accomodate up to 90" TVs.

I don't see an OLED that big being that cheap in just 3 years, given that currently no OLED of rany size is shipping anywhere on earth and no one is planning 10G glass right now. (One weird thing about the 80" and 90" LCDs is that they currently only exist because of overcapacity in 8G fabs so 40/42" and 46" lines are being repurposed to make 80, 84 and 90" LCDs. That won't repeat anytime soon for OLED.)

But that said, the long-run trajectory is for OLED to slowly, but surely takeover the LCD market, especially from the high end. Given than an 80" LCD is that much money now, your OLED of 80" seems likely in the 3-5 year period. And your 90" seems likely in the 4-8 year term, with a proportional price vs. today's doubling over the 80".